Funding War And Domestic Spying

This week I literally marveled at how deftly Alan Grayson was able to use congressional procedures beyond the ken of garden variety congressmembers to get five amendments to the defense-spending bill passed without controversy particularly one prohibiting torture. “This amendment," explained Grayson to any Members who might not be paying attention, "makes the intent of Congress clear; it makes the law clear: We. Don’t. Torture. The United States military is prohibited from torturing any human being, at home or abroad.” Another very important amendment he got through is being referred to as the "contractor death penalty," which disqualifies companies-- no matter how many contributions they've given Buck McKeon, John McCain or Steny Hoyer-- from government contracting work for 3 years after being indicted or convicted for any one of 12 offenses defense contractors are often guilty of-- from fraud, embezzlement, theft and forgery to tax evasion, bribery, or violations of federal or state law in connection with obtaining public contracts. The other 3 amendments Grayson got passed were for research for prostate cancer by the Pentagon, a 50% increase on research on Gulf War Syndrome (which was opposed by many of the Military Industrial Complex Democrats) and a cap on the number of generals at the current level. (Keep in mind that each new general costs tax payers over a million in staff per year). There is literally no Democrat in Congress who has managed to work more productively with Republicans on passing good legislation. That's VERY different from sell-outs like Patrick Murphy, Kyrsten Sinema and Sean Patrick Maloney who just vote with Republicans on their agenda. That isn't bipartisanship; it's cowardice.

The House passed-- by voice vote-- Trey Radel's and Peter Welsh's amendment to require Obama to come to Congress personally and make the case for going to war against Syria if he decides to do anything so foolish. Also passing by voice vote was the amendment banning funds to pay for any military operations in Egypt.

Another amendment I was watching closely was Jerry Nadler's proposal to free Guantanamo detainees who have already been found to have been held without any valid reasons. It failed 176-242, all but 6 Republicans opposing it. It sickened me to see 22 Democrats cross the aisle and vote with the Republicans on this-- all the regular conservative shitheads and cowards like McIntyre, Sinema, Gallego, Barrow, Patrick Murphy, Foster, Barber, Kirkpatrick, Bera, Sean Patrick Maloney, Lipinski, Cuellar, Owens... and Pennsylvania gubernatorial wanna-be Allyson Schwartz who ignore the Democratic grassroots in their own districts and cater to Republicans who aren't going to vote for them anyway. What passed instead, 238-185, was Indiana reactionary Jackie Walorski's mean-spirited and genuinely stupid amendment banning the transfer of innocent detainees from Gitmo to Yemen, a shameful and pointless act that defines what kind of a flaming asshole Walorski is. 14 Democrats voted for her amendment, all the usual suspects: worthless garbage like Barber, Barrow, Kirkpatrick, Lipinksi, Sean Patrick Maloney, Matheson, McIntyre, Owens, Gary Peters, Peterson, Ruiz, Sinema...

The big amendment, of course, was Justin Amash's and John Conyers' Amendment #100 which was meant to stop the NSA’s blanket surveillance of Americans. That really divided the wheat from the chaff-- and not along party lines. The amendment failed 205-217. Both parties' corrupt leadership whipped frantically against the amendment. Democrats were more willing to break from their leaders than Republicans were of course and 134 Republicans voted no, while 83 Democrats voted no. 111 Democrats voted for the Amash-Conyers proposal which would have limited the government’s collection of records under Section 215 of the Patriot Act to those records that pertain to a person who is subject to an investigation under that provision. According to Amash, the amendment has three important practical effects. 

First, it ends the mass surveillance of Americans. The government no longer is authorized under Sec. 215 to hold a pool of metadata on every phone call of every American.  Second, the amendment permits the government to continue to acquire business records and other “tangible things” that are actually related to an authorized counterterrorism investigation. The government still has access to this tool under the amendment, but it’s forced to comply with the intent of Congress when it passed Sec. 215.  Third, the amendment imposes more robust judicial oversight of NSA’s surveillance. The FISA court will be involved every time NSA searches Americans’ records, and the court will have a substantive, statutory standard to apply to make sure the NSA does not violate Americans’ civil liberties.

...The amendment does not affect foreign surveillance. FISA simply does not apply to the surveillance of purely foreign communications... The amendment does not restrict the types of records that the government can collect under Sec. 215.  NSA and the FBI can continue to collect telephone records, car rental reservations, hotel receipts, and any other “tangible thing” under Sec. 215. NSA can continue to collect telephone metadata without a warrant and without probable cause that a crime or other statutory violation has been committed. The amendment simply requires that there be a reasonable connection between the documents sought and the person under investigation.

This is what Amash sent his colleagues in the House: "As you go home for August recess, you will be asked: Did you oppose the suspicionless collection of every American’s phone records? When you had the chance to stand up for Americans’ privacy, did you?"

Rush Holt (D-NJ) immediately introduced the the Surveillance State Repeal Act to repeal federal surveillance laws that the government abused by collecting personal information on millions of Americans in violation of the Constitution.

“As we now know, the National Security Agency and the Federal Bureau of Investigation have been collecting the personal communications of literally millions of innocent Americans for no legitimate reason,” said Holt. “Instead of using these powers to zero in on the tiny number of real terrorist threats we face, the executive branch turned these surveillance powers against the American people as a whole. My legislation would put a stop to that right now.”   Holt’s bill, the “Surveillance State Repeal Act”, would repeal the PATRIOT Act and the FISA Amendments Act, each of which contains provisions that allowed the dragnet surveillance.  The bill would reinstate a uniform probable cause-based warrant standard for surveillance requests, and prohibit the federal government from forcing technology companies from building in hardware or software “back doors” to make it easier for the government to spy on the public. Additional features of the bill include the true legal protections for national security whistleblowers, as well as changes to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to give it greater expertise in reviewing and challenging executive branch applications for surveillance operations.

“The executive branch’s groundless mass surveillance of Americans has turned our conception of liberty on its head. My legislation would restore the proper constitutional balance and ensure our people are treated as citizens first, not suspects.”

The overall Pentagon budget passed 315-109, 8 Republicans and 101 Democrats, primarily progressives, voting against it. Progressive Caucus co-chairs Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ) and Keith Ellison (D-MN) released this statement:

Republicans passed a bloated defense budget today that spends money on weapons programs the Pentagon doesn’t want. This comes a week after they voted to cut funding to feed America’s neediest children. The United States needs a leaner but more capable military able to defeat 21st-century threats. We also need to invest in jobs, education and affordable healthcare for working families. Republicans wrongly decided today that we can’t have both.

The Republican bill spends $47 billion more than the sequester-prescribed cap on defense spending allows and includes an additional $85 billion for overseas contingency operations, primarily to fund the war in Afghanistan. The bill increases spending on outdated programs and does little to help the 650,000 civilian Defense Department employees already being furloughed.

This bill is a missed opportunity to invest in what we need and cut what we don’t. In real terms, we actually spend more on defense today than we did on average during the Cold War. The Cold War is over. Our troops are out of Iraq. The war in Afghanistan is winding down. The security landscape we face today is radically different from 30 years ago, yet Republicans still want to spend like it’s 1985.

Republicans have asked working Americans to give up early education for their children, routine doctors appointments for their families and income security for their grandparents, while they spend billions on programs the Department of Defense doesn't want or need. Preparing for wars that have already ended won't feed our children. Investing in working families will.